John Lewis – Hot Airhttp://hotair.com
The world’s first, full-service conservative Internet broadcast networkFri, 09 Dec 2016 17:01:21 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.116302432Paul Ryan: I won’t tolerate another sit-in from Democratshttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/27/paul-ryan-i-wont-tolerate-another-sit-in-from-democrats/
Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:41:33 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3910860After Democrats held what the Speaker of the House has called a fundraising stunt last week, some Republicans have recommended he file ethics charges against anyone who violated House rules. Ryan doesn’t seem ready to go there quite yet but he did tell WISN news that if Democrats try it again his response will be different:

Ryan also said House Democrats’ nearly 26-hour sit-in on the House floor last week, in which they called for a vote on gun control legislation, was “a low moment for the people’s house.”

Democrats have talked of more action when Congress returns from recess early next month, but Ryan said “we are not going to handle it the same way.”

He did not reveal specifics about how it would be handled differently.

“We will not take this,” he said. “We will not tolerate this.”

The Hill reports that Ryan chose not to have Democrats removed from the House floor last week because he had heard that was exactly what Democrats were hoping would happen:

In a separate radio interview that aired Monday, Ryan said Democrats had hoped to get arrested during last week’s protest. But Republicans, cognizant of the bad optics of putting civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and other senior Democrats in handcuffs, decided to avoid a physical altercation and never called on the sergeant-at-arms to intervene.

“We got maybe an hour heads up. [Democrats] said they were hoping to get arrested and hauled off the floor. They told a number of my staff that,” Ryan told WGTD radio in Wisconsin.

Ryan added, “I’m disappointed that my colleagues believed that they could do this to our institution that we all care about.”

Speaker Ryan was put in an impossible situation by Democrats who were clearly hoping he would walk into a trap set for him. Had he cleared the House, Democrats would have turned an argument over a failed gun control bill into an argument over race and civil rights.

Tough talk aside, it’s hard to see how anything about the underlying dynamic has changed. So long as Rep. John Lewis is willing to behave as if this is a continuation of his march across the Edmund Pettus bridge, it’s to Democrats’ benefit to break the rules again, as many times as necessary. Any reaction by Ryan will be portrayed as a racially-charged overreach against a civil rights icon. So it’s hard to see how can Ryan ever win this showdown because whatever he does the media will ensure that he loses.

The same media that has been consistently dismayed by every government shutdown driven by Republicans was giddy over Democrats turning the House floor into an Occupy camp. Despite the clear breaking of the rules and Ryan’s restrained response, the media gave Democrats’ glowing reviews. Based on those reviews, collected in this clip by the Washington Free Beacon, you can pretty much count on there being a sequel:

]]>3910860Speaker Ryan: Democrats’ sit-in was a ‘fundraising stunt’ that diminished the institutionhttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/23/speaker-ryan-criticized-democrats-fundraising-off-sit-in/
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:21:17 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3910364Paul Ryan had harsh words for House Democrats Thursday morning, accusing them of holding a fundraising stunt that diminished the world’s oldest democracy.

At his Thursday press conference, Ryan held up printed copies of a fundraising solicitation. “House Democrats on the House floor. Your contribution will go to the DCCC,” Ryan pointed out. He continued by pointing to each fundraising box in turn, “Fifteen dollars, this one says try giving us 25 bucks, but if you want you can send us 50, a hundred, 250 dollars, 500 dollars, a thousand, because look at what we’re doing on the House floor. Send us money.”

“If this is not a political stunt then why are they trying to raise money off of this? Off of a tragedy. What they’ve called for failed in a committee in the House. The reason I call this a stunt is because they know this isn’t going anywhere. It already failed in the Senate.

“They may not like this fact but this bill couldn’t even get 50 votes in the United States Senate, let alone sixty. Why is that? Why is it that this bill failed on a bipartisan basis in committee and this bill failed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate? Because in this country we do not take away people’s constitutional right without due process. This is not just Republicans saying this. It’s groups like the ACLU who are saying this.

“But more to the point. Our focus needs to be on confronting radical extremism. Terrorism is the issue. Let me say it again, terrorism is the issue and defeating terrorism is our focus in the House. So let me be really clear. We are not going to take away the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. And we’re not going to allow publicity stunts to prevent us from doing our job.”

Ryan went on to say that the House had passed legislation regarding the Zika virus “in the face of this distraction.”

During a Q&A session that followed his comments, Ryan was asked about being shouted down by Democrats Wednesday evening and whether that kind of disrespect might set a bad precedent. “I do worry about the precedent here,” Ryan replied. “I have an obligation as the Speaker of the House to protect this institution. We are the oldest democracy in the world. We are the ballast in the world of free people. And so, when we see our democracy descend in this way, it is not a good sign. It is not a good precedent,” he added.

“Look I’ve been around, I’ve gotten protests…I’ve done the Iowa state fair, you know the soapbox. I’ve done Wisconsin recalls, so that I am used to,” Ryan said. “But on the House floor? No. On the House floor where we have rules, where we have order, where we have a system where democracy is supposed to work its way out in a deliberative, respectful way? No, I did not expect that because…I think what we did is we watched a publicity stunt, a fundraising stunt descend an institution that many of us care a great deal about.”

]]>3910364Rep. Louie Gohmert confronts Democrats on House floorhttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/23/rep-louie-gohmert-confronts-democrats-on-house-floor/
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:21:33 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3910344Wednesday night, about 12 hours in to House Democrats’ sit-in for gun control, Rep. Louie Gohmert seems to have had enough. He came to the floor and challenged Democrats after Rep. Brad Sherman said he was afraid to debate the issue. The incident was captured via cellphone video broadcast on CSPAN.

Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman stood at a microphone saying, “We should be concerned about the civil liberties aspects. There is a right to travel that the courts have found in our Constitution. There is a Second Amendment and neither of those should be taken away from an American frivolously.”

Frivolously.

It’s okay to take away constitutional rights without due process, so long as you do so with some appropriate seriousness. That’s the Democrat’s argument.

At this point, someone could be heard starting to yell off camera. Rep. Sherman continued, “I know the gentleman is afraid of what I have to say…” Then Democrats began trying to shout down the person disrupting their PR stunt, yelling slogans like “No fly, no buy.” But the disruption continued and at that point Democrats began demanding the person creating the disruption come down to the floor to “debate.”

“It appears as if the gentleman is afraid to vote and afraid to debate,” Sherman said to someone off camera. He added, “And given the weakness of his arguments and his position, his fear is well founded.” This brought a round of applause from Democrats.

Apparently that was enough for Rep. Gohmert. He approached the podium and, pointing at a poster of victims of the Orlando attack yelled, “Radical Islam killed these poor people.”

Rather than debate him as they had promised, Democrats began chanting “No fly, no buy” in an effort to shout Gohmert down. It’s impossible to hear what Gohmert says next because of the noise. Rep. Brad Sherman started to engage with Gohmert but another Democrat runs up to the microphone to stop him. Democrats didn’t want a debate.

As Democrats continued chanting, “No bill, no break” to drown Gohmert out, Rep. Scott Peters, who was holding the camera, shouted, “Why are you protecting terrorists?”

Gohmert repeated, “Radical Islam killed these people” a couple more times and then moved away from the microphone where he was surrounded by Democrats. Some conversation continued but it was too far from the camera to be heard.

Rep. Gohmert appeared on Fox News Thursday morning to describe the incident. “The Democrats had taken control of all 8 microphones…they had taken over the chamber,” Gohmert said. He continued, “It was incredible to see real American folk heroes like John Lewis, who were brutalized and stood up for civil rights, folks were there using the instruments that helped gain civil right to try to take away people’s civil rights.”

]]>3910344“Shock” find: early Constitutional scholar called 2A “palladium of liberty”http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/23/shock-find-early-constitutional-scholar-called-2a-palladium-of-liberty/
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:01:47 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3910280One of the first people to ever write a study of the U.S. Constitution believed the Second Amendment had everything to do with self-defense, and not militias. St. George Tucker wrote on the issue all the way back in 1803 in his work View of the Constitution of the United States, calling the right of the people to keep and bear arms a hallmark of liberty (emphasis mine):

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most government it has been the study of rules to confirm this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color of pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

That’s going to be a disappointment to everyone saying the Second Amendment only refers to muskets and/or militias (especially those “sitting in” on the House floor). Tucker isn’t suggesting only certain people (militia members) should own weapons; he’s saying everyone has the right to own a gun (whether it’s a musket, pistol, AR-15, etc.). He may even be suggesting letting people own weapons will keep the government from using the army to attack civilians in the name of tyranny (what’s the use of a pistol if those who are attacking you are using AR-15’s).

It’s here where Tucker shows just how limited the government was supposed to be, when he compares our Second Amendment with the English law it was based on.

In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

This shows the Founding Fathers were interested in civilians being able to protect themselves from others. Damon Root at Reason (who deserves a massive h/t for mentioning Tucker’s analysis in the first place) wrote earlier this week how Anti-Federalists were extremely concerned about losing the ability to own weapons.

For example, Anti-Federalists at the New Hampshire ratification convention wanted it made clear that, “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” Anti-Federalists at the Massachusetts ratification convention wanted the Constitution to “be never construed…to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable, from keeping their own arms.”

Meanwhile, in the Anti-Federalist stronghold of Pennsylvania, critics at that state’s ratification convention wanted the Constitution to declare, “that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.”

It would be nice if more Democrats (and some Republicans) would be willing to actually read what early Americans were worried about. People like Congressmen John Lewis and Jerrold Nadler seem more willing to use histrionic rhetoric instead of actually looking at logic. Via Politico:

“How many more mothers? How many more fathers need to shed tears of grief before we do something?” Lewis continued, his voice rising in intensity. “Give us a vote. Let us vote. We came here to do our job. We came here to work.”

A short while later, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said the House “is drenched in blood and the only way we can cleanse it is if the speaker of the House allows us to vote on this legislation.”

“Every day that we don’t commit to a vote, the blood is on the leadership of this House,” Nadler added.

It’s awful whenever a mass shooting or terrorist attack happens. It’s horrific seeing family crying on TV as they try to come to grips with what happened. But gun control advocates are forgetting (whether intentionally or not) is what the nation was founded on and Tucker’s analysis of the Constitution shows how strongly the Founders believed in the right to bear arms. If Nadler, Lewis, and the rest of the Democrats don’t want to own an AR-15, that’s fine. If they want to start lobbying family members/security detail/neighbors to not own one, that’s fine too. Just don’t force the heavy hand of government to determine what thing someone can or can’t own. That’s the tyranny the Founding Fathers (specifically the Anti-Federalists) were worried about.

]]>3910280OCCUPY CONGRESS: Speaker Ryan adjourns House as Dems continue sit-in protest to infringe on individual rightshttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/23/occupy-congress-speaker-ryan-adjorns-house-as-dems-continue-sit-in-demonstration-to-infringe-on-individual-rights/
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:41:47 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3910293Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) has come full circle in his astounding, American life. He came to prominence during the struggles of the 1960s as an original member of the “Big Six” civil rights leaders who risked their lives for the rights of black Americans to vote and exercise other basic rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. And last night, he led a sit-in on the floor of the US House of Representatives for the sole purpose of curtailing those same constitutionally-protected rights.

Here’s your latest update on the “Occupy Congress” efforts led by aging Baby Boomers trying to re-live their hippie days on your dime and on your time.

As of 5:55 AM the Democrats continued their demonstrations and speeches using smartphones hooked in to the Periscope app on Twitter. C-Span chose to broadcast the Periscope stream since the official cameras for the House had been shut-down by the GOP leadership when the House adjourned earlier in the morning.

Around 3:30 AM, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) held a press conference for reporters and Roll Call reported that some members of the House were curled up and sleeping in their seats:

Democrats acknowledged their efforts did not result in a vote on any gun bills but said their efforts helped elevate their cause. Hoyer said he did not have further discussions with the speaker or Sergeant at Arms about House rules on the floor and what that would mean in the future

Hoyer said there is a whip meeting on Thursday at 10 a.m. where they may discuss the next steps.

Some members were seen in their seats curled up in blankets and nodding off around 4:15 a.m.

The House formally adjourned at 3:30 AM as Speaker Ryan attempted to speak reason to the Dems:

“The chair appreciates that members will differ on matters of policy and will seek to express those differences. But the chair would hope that the business of the House could be conducted in a fashion that respects positively on the dignity and decorum of this institution.”

Isn’t that precious? He thinks he can appeal to their sense of decorum.

Meanwhile, as Mollie Hemingway at the Federalist points out some despicable hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats on this sit-in and the way the media covered a GOP protest after then-Speaker Pelosi adjourned the House without a vote they wanted:

After Republicans declared the recess and accordingly turned off the C-SPAN cameras, Democrats were furious and cried out about the unfairness of having cameras taken away from them. But in 2008, Republicans opposed a motion to adjourn before scheduling a vote to allow off-shore drilling. They refused to leave and continued to bash then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for leaving town before a vote. Democrats turned off the lights and microphones and shut off C-SPAN.

As John Bresnahan of Politico wrote at the time:

Democratic aides were furious at the GOP stunt, and reporters were kicked out of the Speaker’s Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers.

‘You’re not covering this, are you?’ complained one senior Democratic aide. Another called the Republicans ‘morons’ for staying on the floor.

Then they sent cops to kick reporters out. In the end, their rebellion only lasted five hours and wasn’t as helpful as the Democrats’ turn because they staged it during recess.

And speaking of the media, CNN has now replaced their insidious “Count-down Clock” with a “Count-UP Clock” to record how long the “Occupy Congress” protest has been going on.

There’s no telling why Republicans in the House aren’t proud and eager to engage the Democrats in this debate. Why not embrace the opportunity to show how Democrats are lying about the “No Fly” list and lying about the mass shootings in America that would not be prevented in any possible way by their gun control measures? Why not take this opportunity to point out the Dems’ hypocrisy on the day-to-day gun deaths of young, black men in urban areas (the districts many of these congressmen represent) that gets ignored without any comment or protest in the House? Why not take this opportunity to stand for freedom, liberty, the constitution and our God-given right to self defense?

It would be nice to see Republicans engage in that debate at some point. But, until they do, there’s only one thing we can be sure of: The Obamazation of the Democratic Party is complete. He has successfully community organized the party. At this point, the proud history of the Democrats dating back to Jefferson and Jackson has been reduced to a group of misfits resembling rejects from an Acorn protest.

]]>3910293Democrats vow: This House sit-in will go on until one of us literally wipes with the Fifth Amendmenthttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/22/democrats-vow-this-house-sit-in-will-go-on-until-one-of-us-literally-wipes-with-the-fifth-amendment/
Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:01:42 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3910227An update to John’s post earlier. The headline’s a joke, of course, but not much of one. As several conservatives on Twitter have marveled, what they’re really protesting here is due process for American citizens.

In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Lewis said “too many of our children, too many of our sisters and brothers, our mothers and fathers, our friends, our cousins are dying by guns and we have to do something about it.”…

“We don’t have any intention of leaving anytime soon,” Lewis said…

“The House cannot operate without members following the rules of the institution, so the House has recessed subject to the call of the chair,” his spokesman AshLee Strong said in a statement…

On Wednesday, the group of lawmakers chanted from the floor: “I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired!” and “No bill, no break!” while the House remained in recess.

Not 24 hours ago, Senate Democrats had the chance to vote on a bill that would have given them the core of what they want, namely, DOJ power to block gun purchases by anyone on a terror watch list. All they had to do was make a simple concession to due process by requiring the feds to go to court and show their work, proving to a judge within three days of the attempted purchase that the person on the list was actually dangerous. Too many innocent people have been put on watch lists erroneously to grant the federal government power to strip them of their rights with no judicial safeguard. That was the Cornyn bill; it died in the Senate, 53/47, when Democrats refused to give it the 60 votes it needed for cloture. The left killed the bill only because it provided due process to gun owners. Even the ACLU is aghast:

Our nation’s watchlisting system is error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names…

The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards—which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

Democrats, who were very offended indeed by George W. Bush’s expansion of the surveillance state (once it was politically safe after 9/11 to feel that way), simply don’t care about the due-process objections even though the no-fly list has been held unconstitutional by a federal judge. Given the opportunity to pass legislation with Republican help that would make it harder for watch-listers to get guns, they passed for the most cynical reason — because the bill’s success would deny them a talking point they need to get their base out to vote this fall. If a bipartisan Congress agrees to “no fly, no buy (for three days at least),” that’s one less thing that Democrats have to dangle in front of skeptical progressives as a reason to turn out. They’re rather continue to let watch-listers buy guns without a hitch, knowing that if some degenerate on a list shoots up another club somewhere, Republicans will be blamed for that despite Cornyn’s best efforts. Politically “our bill or no bill” is win/win. No wonder major Democratic pols from Hillary Clinton to Bill Clinton to The One himself are all touching themselves this afternoon over this anti-constitutional grandstanding idiocy. And no wonder they’ve got John Lewis, the civil-rights hero, involved in it, to lend the stunt the veneer that it’s somehow designed to support civil rights instead of undermine them. Read CNN’s breathless report on the sit-in and Lewis’s role in it; I count exactly one skeptical line as of 3 p.m. ET and that’s a perfunctory criticism from Paul Ryan’s office. When do the Democratic fundraising e-mails go out? Or have they already?

The latest is that the Republican leadership has ordered the cameras in the House turned off to deny Democrats a media platform for their stunt. That’ll inevitably be treated as some sort of war crime even though Democrats themselves did the same thing in pulling the plug on a GOP protest back in 2008. In lieu of an exit question, meditate on this: John Lewis himself was once … erroneously included on a no-fly list. He’s effectively protesting against his own rights.

Update: Your media is deep, deep, deep in the tank.

In a gaggle of 30 reporters, every reporter asked about how "historic" the sit in was.

]]>3910227Must we politicize the naming of US Navy vessels?http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/18/must-we-politicize-the-naming-of-us-navy-vessels/
Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:01:30 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3909727One story which didn’t receive a lot of play this week was a short lived effort in the House to regulate the naming of United States Navy ships. Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.) introduced an amendment to the defense spending bill which would restrict the honor of having a ship named after you to former presidents and those who have served in the military. The amendment wound up being rejected, but it caused a bit of a stir because the Secretary of the Navy recently announced plans to name a ship after Congressman and civil rights icon John Lewis. Coming from a Republican you can only imagine the accusations which were flying around that one. (Washington Post)

A House Republican introduced a measure Tuesday that would prevent the U.S. Navy from naming ships after lawmakers who have not served in the military or as president.

The measure would have prevented civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis and former Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin from receiving the honor but a House committee decided to pass up the opportunity to give the measure a vote in the full House.

The naming of ships or other government facilities after lawmakers sometimes has been controversial in recent years. Lewis’s status as a civil rights icon, which the Navy cited in its announcement, could have added more tension to the issue.

“Naming this ship after John Lewis is a fitting tribute to a man who has, from his youth, been at the forefront of progressive social and human rights movements in the U.S., directly shaping both the past and future of our nation,” Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said in a statement in January.

For his part, Palazzo said that the amendment had “nothing — absolutely zero — to do with John Lewis.” That may be true, but you know that’s how the Democrats will play it. But the real question here is whether or not Congress should be getting involved in the question in the first place. The problem is that we’re dealing with a subject which, like so many other things in the military, rides entirely on tradition and not on any history of legislation or constitutional requirements. Perhaps the better question is, what’s in a name?

Personally, I have no problem with – and actually support – the idea of keeping our ship naming in the realm of those who served with honor in the military. (Presidents count by virtue of having been Commander in Chief.) Over a few hundred years of battles, there is no shortage of names of military members whose names could be enshrined on the bows of our naval vessels. But the fact is that we’ve traditionally left that up to the Secretary of the Navy and we’ve already veered away from that tradition on a number of occasions.

Ray Mabus has, in my opinion, been something of a disaster in his post. He’s been politicizing the office at every opportunity, particularly when it comes to gender roles in combat and related topics, but he’s the guy we have for the time being. He’ll be gone soon enough if Hillary loses the election, so this too shall pass, as the saying goes. We went a bit overboard when we named a ship after Cesar Chavez, who is primarily known for his union activism, but at least he was in the Navy. Still, I doubt even the most controversial name is going to cause a ship to sink.

This isn’t an easy call, but without some defining previous legislation to fall back on, I’m not sure how we tackle this question. Should Congress institute rules regarding the naming of military equipment, bases and other such honors? But at the same time I’m torn. When we open the door to having living members of the legislative branch or other famous figures put into the mix, our two parties will immediately go to war over it. (As they already seem to be doing on a small scale.) What’s next? The USS Al Franken? How about some mine sweepers named after all the Kardashians?

Why do we have to make everything so complicated?

]]>3909727Bernie Sanders and “that photo”http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/13/bernie-sanders-and-that-photo/
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/13/bernie-sanders-and-that-photo/#commentsSat, 13 Feb 2016 17:01:10 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3893574Here’s your oddball political story for the weekend, and one which probably wouldn’t even rise near the surface of the pool if it wasn’t in rotation on every cable news channel and most of the big newspapers. It’s a tale of mystery concerning a photograph which dates back more than four decades. It supposedly shows socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders addressing a group of young people conducting a sit-in protest in Chicago. It was part of the civil rights unrest of the era and students were doing such things all over the nation. There’s one problem, though… some people are claiming that it’s not actually Sanders.

If that were true I suppose it wouldn’t be all that shocking. In a jumble of ancient photographs it’s easy to misattribute one now and again, and nobody is denying that Sanders was out there protesting during that period. But clearly it’s a bone of contention, and as people have made accusations, the Sanders campaign felt they had to answer the charges. (CNN)

Bernie Sanders’ campaign manger said Friday the campaign is “100% confident” that a well-publicized photograph showing a man leading a sit-in at the University of Chicago in 1962 was, in fact, a shot of Sanders.

Four alumni of the school told Time magazine in November that the photo does not show Sanders but rather another classmate named Bruce Rappaport. But Jeff Weaver, the Sanders aide, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Friday that the campaign was certain the photograph, which has been used in promotional videos and on social media, was indeed of him.

Your first response may very well be to ask… who the heck cares? It’s an ancient photo of a sit in at a Chicago protest. Maybe that one picture was of Sanders or maybe it wasn’t. Either way, he was there and getting in the mix since he was arrested for the same thing during the same period.

But apparently it’s very important to some people. One of them is the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart. He spent most of one afternoon and evening shooting out tweets linking to a recent column of his where he focused on nothing but the offending photo, insisting that the grainy picture shows a different protester entirely.

But that’s not Bernie Sanders in the photo. It is Bruce Rappaport.

Classmates of the two men started raising concerns about the discrepancy last year. According to Time, four University of Chicago alumni told the magazine in November that they believed the man to be Rappaport, also a student activist, who died in 2006. At the time of the story, the photo was still captioned as Bernie Sanders in the University of Chicago’s photo archive. But the picture’s caption has since been changed.

By the next day I saw Capehart tweeting that he had tracked down Rappaprt’s widow and some other expert and he was transcribing interviews with them. You’d think he’d finally found the missing frames of film pointed at the grassy knoll during the Kennedy assassination. This brings us back to the “who cares” aspect of the question. In an odd bit of irony, Capehart makes that same point himself if you read all the way down to the bottom of the article.

Sanders’s involvement in the civil rights movement and his commitment to equal justice are not in question. Another old picture that appears in campaign literature and video of student-activist Sanders with the university president is not in question. That most definitely is him. What’s at issue is Sanders’s misleading use of a photograph to burnish already solid credentials.

So after raising all this fuss over one photo which may or may not include Sanders during a period where everyone agrees he was present and working as an activist, Jonathan admirably shows some interest in telling the truth. But there’s another element of truth which is clearly not as interesting to the WaPo editorial board member. I brought up the issue of the John Lewis endorsement where he said Sanders wasn’t around, but that he met Hillary Clinton and her husband during those tumultuous years. I followed that up by asking him if he would care to weigh in on the fact that Lewis previously said he never met the Clintons until thirty years later. The response?

So documented history is now “bait” but an argument over a single, fifty year old photo is running news at one of the nation’s largest papers. Bernie being possibly credited for a single frame from a sit-in when he may have been at another protest event somehow tarnishes his liberal bona fides, but the fact that one of the most high profile living leaders of the civil rights movement apparently lied about the Clintons being around at all during that period is not news.

Congratulations, Secretary Clinton. You’ve got the full media press on your side now. Bernie should be knocked out of the ring in short order.

Original text edited to read fifty year old photo.

]]>http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/13/bernie-sanders-and-that-photo/feed/733893574John Lewis said he knew the Clintons in the civil rights era, but he didn’t always make that claimhttp://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/11/john-lewis-said-he-knew-the-clintons-in-the-civil-rights-era-but-he-didnt-always-make-that-claim/
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/11/john-lewis-said-he-knew-the-clintons-in-the-civil-rights-era-but-he-didnt-always-make-that-claim/#commentsFri, 12 Feb 2016 03:01:01 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=3893422Poor Bernie Sanders. The guy can’t seem to catch a break. First the Congressional Black Caucus mostly endorses Hillary Clinton and then none other than civil rights icon Congressman John Lewis stands up to make a speech saying how he never saw Sanders at any marches supporting black citizens. But he did see the Clintons. (The Hill)

“To be very frank, I never saw him, I never met him,” Lewis said during the CBC PAC’s endorsement.

“I chaired the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963-1966. I was involved in sit-ins, Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the March from Selma to Montgomery … but I met Hillary Clinton, I met President Clinton.”

As he spoke, someone in the crowd could be heard repeatedly saying “uh oh” and “tell it” as Lewis made his points.

The first time I heard of Bill Clinton was in the early ’70s. I was living in Georgia, working for the Southern Poverty Law organization, when someone told me about this young, emerging leader in Arkansas who served as attorney general, then later became governor.

Just a moment ago he was talking about his work from 1963-1966 when he had never met Sanders, but had met the Clintons. But he apparently told Bill’s diarist that he’d never heard of him until the early seventies. And mind you… that’s just when he heard of him. When did they actually meet? The chapter continues.

I think I paid more attention to him at the 1988 Democratic Convention, when he was asked to introduce the presidential candidate and took up far more time than was allotted to him. After he became involved with the Democratic Leadership Council, I would run into him from time to time. But it was one of his aides, Rodney Slater, who actually introduced us in 1991 and asked me if I would support his presidency.

So he had “run into him” from time to time and was finally introduced in 1991. It’s also worth noting that there is still zero mention of Hillary. If he had known her and not her famous husband, it seems like it would have come up in the conversation by now. But back to the question of dates, I’m not a history expert and math isn’t my strong suit, but I think 1991 was considerably after the march on Selma… possibly by almost 30 years. Further, Lewis has always had his finger on the pulse of black leaders who were in tune with the history and progress of civil rights. Perhaps some of them knew Bill and Hillary instead?

Rodney gets the credit for convincing me that Bill Clinton was “the man,” when he told me all he had done in Arkansas to help change the layout of that state. In the summer of 1991, I hosted a breakfast for him in the Rayburn building. Congressmen Mike Espy and Bill Jefferson were there. The three of us were trying to convince the Democratic Black Caucus to endorse Clinton. Most Northern members didn’t know him and wasn’t very interested. Only a few members of the black Caucus came to the breakfast, but those of us there had a wonderful discussion. Several staff people came from different offices, and they all came back to me later to say how wonderful he was.

What was so striking about Bill Clinton was that here was a governor and a presidential candidate, and he actually made you feel as if he knew he needed you. He was warm, engaging, and comfortable with the African American audience. We literally began to feel he was one of us. The people there were amazed to see this white Southerner so comfortable around blacks.

We’re talking about two famous individual who Congressman Lewis clearly stated had been involved with the civil rights movement dating back to the sixties. And yet when he was introducing Bill around in 1991 the other members of the Black Caucus were “amazed” that this southern white man was so comfortable around blacks? How amazing could it be if he’d been out there working on civil rights for the past thirty years? And if his wife was such an integral part of that noble effort, wouldn’t she have even merited a mention?

Somebody might want to ask the Congressman about this if they run into him.

]]>http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/11/john-lewis-said-he-knew-the-clintons-in-the-civil-rights-era-but-he-didnt-always-make-that-claim/feed/643893422John Lewis: What Obama should do now in Ferguson is, uh … declare martial lawhttp://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/14/john-lewis-what-obama-should-do-now-in-ferguson-is-uh-declare-martial-law/
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/14/john-lewis-what-obama-should-do-now-in-ferguson-is-uh-declare-martial-law/#commentsThu, 14 Aug 2014 18:01:23 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=641362I understand the frame of reference. Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to desegregate Central High; the Marines were sent in during the L.A. riots after the Rodney King verdict to keep the peace. This idea of using troops to maintain order when racial tensions blow sky high somewhere in America isn’t out of the blue, especially for someone who participated in the civil rights movement. But this is a singularly terrible idea on a day when elements of the left and right have coalesced to criticize — ta da — the militarization of the police. The solution to cops in fatigues with heavy weapons, I’m thinking, isn’t bona fide soldiers in the streets with heavier weapons. Although one of the many nasty byproducts of having a warrior police force is that the arguments against actual military occupation start to weaken. Who would you rather take your chances with as a protester, a U.S. Marine who’s been rigorously trained and who understands there’s a fierce taboo against soldiers using violence against American citizens or a local cop who hasn’t dealt with many riots before and who’s finally getting to test out some of the impressive weapons the feds have given the force?

Martial law is also a terrible idea politically for Democrats, of course. I guarantee there were people in the White House audibly groaning as Lewis floated this rhetorical air biscuit for a lefty audience on MSNBC, knowing that it’ll put (a little) pressure on Obama to take his advice and further knowing that conservatives would have a field day turning out voters in November after O declared “martial law” in a midwestern town, even for a day. If the National Guard is sent in, the order will come from Jay Nixon, precisely because the party is eager to keep Obama far away from this. Better that he spend his time golfing than giving military orders in a situation that’s already racially inflamed.

Oh, and the reason Andrea Mitchell doesn’t press Lewis on any of this is because she’s riding along on the dumbest, lamest lefty read on Ferguson. She’s not going to rock the boat, especially at John Lewis’s expense.

]]>http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/14/john-lewis-what-obama-should-do-now-in-ferguson-is-uh-declare-martial-law/feed/175641362Good news from Sheila Jackson Lee: The Constitution implies a right to health care and educationhttp://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/07/good-news-from-sheila-jackson-lee-the-constitution-implies-a-right-to-health-care-and-education/
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/07/good-news-from-sheila-jackson-lee-the-constitution-implies-a-right-to-health-care-and-education/#commentsTue, 07 May 2013 19:21:40 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=259225Laugh if you must but it’s no goofier than the idea that “due process” implies a substantive right to kill a baby in the womb but not five minutes later, after it’s emerged.

Besides, Jackson Lee’s been consistent on this. Back in January 2011, right after the new Republican House majority was sworn in, she started arguing that repealing O-Care would amount to a deprivation of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. There’s a certain ruthless logic in her reaching for the Constitution right after the Democrats’ hold on power began to slip in hopes of putting her favored programs beyond the new majority’s grasp. And now she’s doing it again, conveniently just as the media’s filling up with stories about ObamaCare’s implementation maybe turning into a “train wreck.”

Speaking on the House floor, Jackson Lee said the right to these services can be read into the Declaration of Independence, which preserves the rights of Americans to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“One might argue that education and healthcare fall into those provisions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” she said. Jackson Lee also praised President Obama for fighting for these rights.

“I think that what should be continuously emphasized is the President’s leadership on one single point: that although healthcare was not listed per se in the Constitution, it should be a constitutional right,” she said.

How many Democrats at this point have been forced to resort to the Declaration of Independence for quasi-constitutional arguments to support O-Care because the actual Constitution doesn’t do much for them? Pelosi’s the most famous example, but John Lewis once went there too. It makes me nostalgic for the elegant simplicity of the “Commerce Clause lets us do anything we want, wingnuts” arguments before the Supreme Court ruling on the mandate last year. Friendly advice to Pelosi et al.: You can justify literally any policy, left or right, on grounds that it’s designed to enable the citizen’s “pursuit of happiness.” We should repeal Social Security and Medicare right now because eliminating payroll taxes and easing the debt burden on the public will make it easier for them to pursue their happiness. Good lord, even the “general welfare” provision in the Constitution’s preamble, as flimsy as it is as a basis for constitutional law, would at least put you in the correct document. If you’re going to try to strip Congress’s power to govern, at least make a rhetorical effort.

I can’t find video of Jackson Lee’s speech last night so here’s the video from 2011. The idea that “rights,” once granted by statute, can’t be removed constitutionally even by another duly-passed statute is true, at least, to the spirit of the Democrats’ one-way ratchet for the welfare state.

]]>http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/07/good-news-from-sheila-jackson-lee-the-constitution-implies-a-right-to-health-care-and-education/feed/163259225Video: For once, a feel-good family commercialhttp://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/14/video-for-once-a-feel-good-family-commercial/
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/14/video-for-once-a-feel-good-family-commercial/#commentsMon, 14 Nov 2011 23:40:03 +0000http://hotair.com/?p=165925Often, I wonder how disconnected advertisers must be to craft some of the commercials that appear on TV. I’ve been known to not buy products just because the commercials that advertise them annoy me so much. Call it reverse advertising. OK, so maybe I’m not the most rational consumer if I’ll willingly forgo a quality product at a low price, but, really, is it so hard to make a compelling commercial?

U.K. retailer John Lewis proves it can be done. This is my new gold standard for TV ads:

Not coincidentally, I also happen to completely buy into the principle this little gem espouses: Better by far to give than to receive.